January 24, 2008

The latest statistics—compiled by the Defense Department. and obtained through the Freedom of Information Act by the Boston-based National Priorities Project—are grim. They show that the percentage of new Army recruits with high-school diplomas has plunged from 94 percent in 2003 to 83.5 percent in 2005 to 70.7 percent in 2007. (The Pentagon's longstanding goal is 90 percent.)

The percentage of what the Army calls "high-quality" recruits—those who have high-school diplomas and who score in the upper 50th percentile on the Armed Forces' aptitude tests—has declined from 56.2 percent in 2005 to 44.6 percent in 2007.

In order to meet recruitment targets, the Army has even had to scour the bottom of the barrel. There used to be a regulation that no more than 2 percent of all recruits could be "Category IV"—defined as applicants who score in the 10th to 30th percentile on the aptitude tests. In 2004, just 0.6 percent of new soldiers scored so low. In 2005, as the Army had a hard time recruiting, the cap was raised to 4 percent. And in 2007, according to the new data, the Army exceeded even that limit—4.1 percent of new recruits last year were Cat IVs.

The "aptitude" test is the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT), which is a highly "g-loaded" functional equivalent of an IQ test. In fact, the military provided Charles Murray with all the AFQT data that makes up the middle section of The Bell Curve.

What's interesting here is how much more the Army values IQ over a high school diploma -- There are roughly as many high school dropouts (25% of all young adults according James Heckman) as there are people scoring at the 30th percentile or less on the military's IQ test (30%, by definition). Yet, the military has only allowed the percentage of new recruits below the 30th percentile to increase from 0.6% to 4.1%. Yet, over roughly the same time period, it has allowed the percentage of high school dropouts it takes in to grow from 6% to 29.3%.

Second, and more practically, high-school dropouts tend to drop out of the military, too. The National Priorities Project cites Army studies finding that 80 percent of high-school graduates finish their first terms of enlistment in the Army—compared with only about half of those with a General Equivalency Degree or no diploma. In other words, taking in more dropouts is a short-sighted method of boosting recruitment numbers. The Army will just have to recruit even more young men and women in the next couple of years, because a lot of the ones they recruited last year will need to be replaced.

Third, a dumber army is a weaker army. A study by the RAND Corporation, commissioned by the Pentagon and published in 2005, evaluated several factors that affect military performance—experience, training, aptitude, and so forth—and found that aptitude is key. This was true even of basic combat skills, such as shooting straight. Replacing a tank gunner who had scored Category IV with one who'd scored Category IIIA (in the 50th to 64th percentile) improved the chances of hitting a target by 34 percent.

Today's Army, of course, is much more high-tech, from top to bottom. The problem is that when tasks get more technical, aptitude makes an even bigger difference. In one Army study cited by the RAND report, three-man teams from the Army's active-duty signal battalions were told to make a communications system operational. Teams consisting of Category IIIA personnel had a 67 percent chance of succeeding. Teams with Category IIIB soldiers (who had ranked in the 31st to 49th percentile) had a 47 percent chance. Those with Category IVs had only a 29 percent chance. The study also showed that adding a high-scoring soldier to a three-man team increased its chance of success by 8 percent. (This also means that adding a low-scoring soldier to a team reduces its chance by a similar margin.)

In case you are wondering, here's the Wikipedia summary of the AFQT (which is the crucial subset of the larger ASVAB -- the AFQT determines whether you are allowed in, while the other parts of the ASVAB influence your specialty once you are in).

An Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) score is used to determine basic qualification for enlistment.

AFQT Scores are divided into the following categories:

Category I - 93-99

Category II- 65-92

Category IIIA - 50-64

Category IIIB - 31-49

Category IVA - 21-30

Category IVB - 16-20

Category IVC - 10-15

Category V - 0-9

The formula for computing this AFQT score is: Arithmetic Reasoning + Math Knowledge + (2 x VE). The VE (verbal) score is determined by adding the raw scores from the Paragraph Comprehension and Word Knowledge tests (i.e., how many questions the aspiring recruit got right on each) and using a table to get the VE score from that combined PC and WK raw score.

AFQT scores are not raw scores, but rather percentile scores indicating how each examinee performed compared with all other examinees. Thus, someone who receives an AFQT of 55 scored better than 55 percent of all other examinees.

Law prohibits applicants in Category V from enlisting. In addition, there are constraints placed on Category IV recruits. Presently, all Category IV recruits must be high school diploma graduates. Further, the law constrains the percentage of accessions who can fall in Category IV (currently, the limit is 20%).

72 comments:

anony-mouse
said...

People with low IQ's don't do any job better than people with higher IQ's. If they can find jobs in the army rather than being perpetually unemployed, homeless or in prison, and if they're willing, why not?

Withdraw from Iraq, and the quality and quantity of recruits will improve.

Maybe, maybe not. But - having considered joining the Guard after 9/11 - that's not what motivated my thinking.

Remember folks, you aren't dyin' for a country anymore - you're dyin' for an idea. How do I know? Well, 'cause Lindsey Graham told me. Granted Sen. Graham himself has shown every willingness to risk his life...er, voice...in the Reserves, suing people and sayin' things. I'm not so willing.

I'm not willing to die for a country that says the kid of someone in Beijing or Guadalajara has as much right to live here as mine.

The insincerity was further driven home when we watched the relatives of those who died on 9/11 get millions while those who served i n the military get a paltry few thousand in death benefits.

In the Reagan Era, 50 million Americans ago, the United States had no problem maintaining an Army of 750,000 men. Today they can scarcely keep it up to 500,000.

Remember folks, you aren't dyin' for a country anymore - you're dyin' for an idea.

Yeah, but that's the price our political and monied elites are willing to pay to transit from America, the nation, to Amerika, the Empire. Many Americans naive patriotic beliefs will evaporate as they come to perceive: "Amerika, the disposable, Amerika, the replaceable", mindset of those running the show.

Not the best news, but a little perspective is helpful here. Although the quality of new recruits may have dropped a little, re-enlistment rates for experienced soldiers have been extremely high. There are more combat-experienced officers and NCOs in the Army today than in decades, and their lessons learned are being absorbed and transmitted throughout the service. The overall quality of the Army is quite high now, even if 4% of the privates are knuckleheads.

I spent 27 years in uniform, retiring last November 11th. I don't want my life, or the lives of my platoon, to depend on Forest Gump. Keep cat IVs out of the army - it is not social work or a jobs program. as thoughtful military historians will tell you, putting someone with a low IQ in a combat environment is murder. Project 100,000 from the Vietnam era bears this out. Infantrymen need above-average IQs to quickly learn fieldcraft, to adapt, and to be able to correctly estimate the situation. Anyone who thinks differently is welcome to enlist, make Squad Leader, volunteer for Iraq, and to ask for the 10 stupidest men in his unit. Good luck!-SFC (Ret.) Lloyd A. Conway

Agree with Peter. The sense of "serving your country" by signing up to go to Iraq isn't coming through. The possibility of getting one's legs blown for the privilege of the use of a VA hospital and the right to pay $4 for a gallon of gas doesn't inspire, either. (What happened to all that cheap gas we were supposed to be enjoying, BTW?)

The Bush family has many children of an age to do military service. To my knowledge, not one of them has made a move in that direction, even though they stand to gain, personally, from secure oil fields. That alone does a lot to reinforce the suspicion that an endless supply of expendable grunts can risk life and limb fighting a war that doesn't appear to be doing much other than enriching the elite.

The study also showed that adding a high-scoring soldier to a three-man team increased its chance of success by 8 percent. (This also means that adding a low-scoring soldier to a team reduces its chance by a similar margin.)

I dont get it. On the contrary, one smart guy and two strong morons with a good attitude seem the best military team. But I know no study on the subject.

Fred Kaplan:Replacing a tank gunner who had scored Category IV with one who'd scored Category IIIA (in the 50th to 64th percentile) improved the chances of hitting a target by 34 percent... Teams consisting of Category IIIA personnel had a 67 percent chance of succeeding. Teams with Category IIIB soldiers (who had ranked in the 31st to 49th percentile) had a 47 percent chance. Those with Category IVs had only a 29 percent chance.

Unless we can get a massive [like 100M+] infusion of high-IQ immigrants, who are determined to make lots and lots of babies, or unless & until the Evangelicals start making even more babies than they are already making, our future is looking disastrous.

I'm not willing to die for a country that says the kid of someone in Beijing or Guadalajara has as much right to live here as mine.

Yes, indeed. And think of the illegal alien who has joined the Army and then returns from his multiple tours of duty only to find that his "adopted" neighborhood is overrun by a new and different breed of illegal alien.

A longer explanation of Steve's statement is that the Military requires high IQ people to operate the complex weapons systems that allow the US military a devastating advantage over conventional opponents, and more recently (and painstakingly) the ability to conduct counter insurgency.

Part of the problem wrt Military recruitment is pay. Military people are paid very little compared to what they can command for comparable tasks in the civilian sector.

"Breaking things and killing people" is a misnomer. Ralph Peters debunked the NYT stories on vets "propensity to violence" by comparisons to civilian 18-34 cohorts. Vets are five times less likely to be involved in crimes of violence, compared to civilians in the same age group. Part of that is doubtless selection, and part probably the after-effect of military discipline.

Peter is wrong, since the Marines who bear the brunt of combat operations have had no problem in meeting recruiting goals. It's largely the Army that has had problems. If Peter was right you'd see Marines having problems recruiting and they don't.

Todal is also wrong. "Amerikkka" is the usual lefty nonsense of anti-Americans. If anything the Bill Gates elites are "post-American" and want US troops to die for things manifestly not in US interests: Kosovo, Rwanda, Darfur, etc. to prop up the corrupt UN. Regardless US policy abroad since Washington has been vacillating between payoffs/appeasement to various Muslim pirates/terrorists and whacking them with the US Navy after bribes get too expensive. Then whacking them gets tiresome and expensive too, so policy switches to payoffs. It's amazing how that cycle has continued for over 200 years.

There are more combat-experienced officers and NCOs in the Army today than in decades, and their lessons learned are being absorbed and transmitted throughout the service.

Well, duh. Now why might that be?

Those lesssons would be much better learned by smarter enlistees. One of the lines from the book "Band of Brothers" that has stuck with me is from one of the officers who stayed in the military for decades after WW2, and wound up training the highest skilled soldiers of all - Delta Force. He noted that Easy Company was by far the best unit he ever served in. Now even accounting for nostalgia, that says something about a time where America's best and brightest were expected to serve - and did. The effect on unit quality showed.

The overall quality of the Army is quite high now, even if 4% of the privates are knuckleheads.

4%? We're talking about a five-fold increase in high school-dropouts - now up to 30%.

as thoughtful military historians will tell you, putting someone with a low IQ in a combat environment is murder.

Of course, Steven Spielberg, "thoughtful military historian," would tell you it's the WASP Ivy League student who turns into a danger on the battlefield, not the dropout with the 81 IQ.

Also, what happens when all these "perpetually unemployed" types eventually come back to America, given their military training and experience in shooting people?

Not just the DC sniper, but Tim McVeigh, the Hispanic guy who shot up an Arizona university, and the recruit who led the rape in Haditha (subject of the movie "Redacted"). That recruit was one of the low-quality folks the Army has let in. What has been the cost to the military in terms of PR?

If anything the Bill Gates elites are "post-American" and want US troops to die for things manifestly not in US interests: Kosovo, Rwanda, Darfur, etc. to prop up the corrupt UN.

Or, more rationally, they want Americans to die to prop up their overseas investments. Investments in the Third World come with higher risks because of instability. Eliminate the risk of instability and suddenly you're getting higher returns for no greater risk.

Here's a few comparisons of the military now, versus the military back in the 80s:

Total Active Duty Personel:

Army (1985): 776,244Army (2004): 500,203

Navy (1990): 604,562Navy (2004): 375,521

Air Force (1986): 608,200Air Force (2004): 379,887

Marines (1990): 196,562Marines (2004): 176,202

(Data from the 2005 World Almanac)

So active duty military personnel fell from 2.185 million ca. 1985-90 to 1.421 million in 2004. The 1985 US Census estimate put US population at 238 million. In 2004 the estimate was 294 million. So 56 million people later the US was struggling to maintain an active duty military less than 2/3rds the size that it was in the late 80s.

Keep in mind that at the same time, women went from 10.2% of all active duty personnel in 1987 to 14.9% in 2003. So the pool of potential recruits has grown even faster than the overall population.

The myth is that Hispanics are superpatriotic and gung ho for the military. There is some truth to that myth, as Hispanics do seem more likely to join than most Americans (especially when you account for the fact that many are illegals who can't join). But the data seem to indicate that Hispanics today are less likely to join than all Americans of 20 years ago. As America's diversity has increased, our patriotism seems to have fallen.

Interesting. I hadn't considered this. Not serving in Iraq will come back to haunt any of them who run for president in the future. However, I think Jeb's son is in the Naval reserve or something like.

Why are you so upset by that? According to that article, “William H. Frey, a demographer with the Brookings Institution, predicted that the United States will have "a multicultural population that will probably be more tolerant, accommodating to other races and more able to succeed in a global economy."

Don’t you want a more tolerant society, more accommodating to other races, more able to succeed in a global economy – dominated by China?

Interesting how the categories that are sure things, i.e. I, II and V, are not broken down into subcategories, and that the category with the most subcategories - IV - is the one that is being used to boost enlistment.

Shows how the army plans expansion when it needs more manpower. However, the kind of fighting the US is involved in now is better undertaken by cat. I and II troops (good intelligence, fast, well-targeted responses), not by superior numbers. So if cat. I and II are declining in numbers and are being replaced by III and IV, effectiveness is probably already starting to suffer.

I wonder whether a similar process happened in Afghanistan with the USSR, eventually leading to them simply giving up? I'll bet it did.

So maybe we can expect something like that in the ME: our army will slowly grow more incompetent as higher quality soldiers attrit out, and as our army accomplishes less and less the political opposition to the war will grow until we finally just give up and leave.

Not just the DC sniper, but Tim McVeigh, the Hispanic guy who shot up an Arizona university, and the recruit who led the rape in Haditha (subject of the movie "Redacted"). That recruit was one of the low-quality folks the Army has let in. What has been the cost to the military in terms of PR?

McVeigh had an IQ of 128: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983291,00.html

Unless we can get a massive [like 100M+] infusion of high-IQ immigrants, who are determined to make lots and lots of babies, or unless & until the Evangelicals start making even more babies than they are already making, our future is looking disastrous.

My IQ is around 140 and I'm pregnant with number two! But you are all still slacking!

I wonder: has anybody considered the possibility that 'category I'-level people might be better at, say, draft-dodging and hence the draft has negative selective effects?

Here's something else to consider: the military is a fantastic place for an intelligent woman, and as such, has monstrously dysgenic effects.

Dang. Viet Nam all over again. Didn't it take the Army quite a while to clean out the garbage it accumulated during that conflict?

I recall, as a young soldier, talking to old-timers who had just come in as the old Vietnam hangers-on were leaving. Stories about prostitutes visiting the barracks every weekend, first sergeants doing coke with the privates, curfews being flagrantly ignored or nonexistent, equipment getting lost/destroyed/sold on the black market. Everyone just kind of doing... whatever they wanted to do.

It took awhile for the Army to pull itself together after that.

I was a wide-eyed naive thing of 17, and couldn't believe that the Army was ever really like that. The 1990s volunteer Army I knew really was pretty disciplined. You certainly couldn't imagine hookers wandering the barracks!

Anyway, yes, of course patriotism is really just formalized ethnocentricism. Lefties knew you couldn't hang on to the 'outdated' idea of "patriotism" without the ethnocentricism driving the train.

How the hawkish neo-cons failed to pick up on this is beyond me. Unless patriotism doesn't really serve their interests, either.

Anyway, yes, of course patriotism is really just formalized ethnocentricism. Lefties knew you couldn't hang on to the 'outdated' idea of "patriotism" without the ethnocentricism driving the train.

How the hawkish neo-cons failed to pick up on this is beyond me. Unless patriotism doesn't really serve their interests, either.

-cranky matron

They did pick up on it, and decided "now's the time to spend what's left of it."

Isn't that obvious from all the lies that were told immediately in the aftermath of 9/11? Patriotism in America was (and is) a declining asset. It's kind of like being a real estate agent selling a house in 2006 -- what you want to do is pump up the market, inflating its value so you can dump it off on some sucker.

Neocons and their stooges have turned out to be no more than hustlers. Does this still surprise anyone?

They tend to shoot their comrades by accident, drive trucks into ditches, leave wrenches inside jet engines, etc, and otherwise do more damage to our side than the other side. The military has studied this at great length.

Steve is completely right about what is is (or should be) a very basic concept.

This isn't about our guys in our bilion-dollar Star Trek fighters battling against Chinese pilots in their billon-dollar Star Trek fighters. Consider instead a squad of four grunts, armed with rifles and grenades, given the basic task of attacking (or defending) a farmhouse. If their leader has IQ:120, they will be more effective than if he has IQ:105. Furthermore, if the other three guys have IQ:110, they will be more effective than if they had IQ:100.

This is the magic of g: whatever you're doing, more g will help you do it faster, better, and with fewer mistakes.

They did pick up on it, and decided "now's the time to spend what's left of it."

Isn't that obvious from all the lies that were told immediately in the aftermath of 9/11? Patriotism in America was (and is) a declining asset. It's kind of like being a real estate agent selling a house in 2006 -- what you want to do is pump up the market, inflating its value so you can dump it off on some sucker.

That's probably a fair analysis.

Yeah, anony-mouse, I think Steve's right on this one.

The Army has avoided taking on low-IQ recruits because they do a hellafied LOT of damage within the unit long before they can hit the ground and "break things" somewhere else. They can't be trusted to follow orders reliably, they lose essential equipment, etc.

For some of them, even very basic functions like personal hygiene can't be left unsupervised... you can imagine how impossible this is to deal with under high stress situations like combat. If you cannot trust a grown man to remember to take a shower at the garrison, you certainly can't trust him to remember to maintain his weapon. Or even know where it IS. They also tend to have more problems handling their family responsibilities.

Units only have so much time to deal with domestic drama. You can't expect lower-IQ soldiers and their equally low-IQ spouses to handle these problems as independently and successfully as better-qualified soldiers (who attract mates capable of handling their own family affairs during deployments!)

Even simple training exercises become dangerous and hopelessly disorganized once the number of low-IQ personnel reaches a critical mass.

Hello, I'm a female who left my Army career in order to be a stay-at-home mom and have 3-4 kids (just one so far). I scored in the 99th percentile on the ASVAB. I decided serving my country, not the Army, was my priority, and that I could better serve my country by having and raising good kids. I did go through one deployment in Iraq before trying to get pregnant (i.e. I'm not a ho who got preg in order to avoid deploying).

To address some previous comments -

As far as I know (I choose not to be morbid and find out exactly what would happen if my Army husband were to get killed), a surviving spouse (or designated benificiary) gets a lump sum $400,000 SGLI payout in addition to the monthly death benefits. So, surviving family members are pretty well taken care of financially.

I laugh and shake my head when civilians say we are not paid enough to do our jobs. We get paid quite well, have great health insurance (only one I've heard of that will take on pre-existing conditions), get lots of tax-free allowances, and get paid to train and learn. Not to mention the huge sign-on bonuses and the fact that dual-military couples really bank. This is a *fantastic* deal for a kid out of high school. Long and short of it, go visit Killeen or some other Army town and observe all the brand-new expensive cars. I guarantee you at least 33% of those vehicles were paid for in full. We are swimming in money.

My husband just piped in he could make more on the outside, but I pointed out the Army is what made him so marketable by paying him to get the training, paying him to get the clearance, and paying him to get the experience. (Of course, getting the experience did require his going through the gauntlet of Iraq but a) hey cowards, just join the Air Force or Navy, duh, and b) being in the military in Iraq is *less* risky for inner-city black men -- there was a study on this a couple years ago.)

well, I didn't address all the civilian misconceptions I noticed here, but I got a baby to wrangle.

Thoughts: A)Dont despair,American patriots!!! I just heard the beloved Ari Fleischer speaking about the new organization he fronts,a Neo-Con group formed to rally us to fight Islamo-Fascism: "FREEDOMSWATCH"!!!!! Their symbol:an angry Eagle!! Its going to be OK,with...FREEDOMSWATCH!!ON DUTY! :) B) Is the Army going to resegrgate itself in a bizarre manner:white men with higher IQ's and better character doing the real fighting--and I think the Armys combat units are disp. white already--with the lower IQ's and less patriotically inclined,the different 'minorities' and women--doing the 'in the rear with the gear' back up stuff?? Logistics has been,and I'm sure is still being,hi-teched to be as fool proof as possible. Interesting that the Marines make their quota,when they offer a much more rigorous experience. The army has noticed,too,no doubt. C)The mexican has been thought of as a brave fighter,someone you'd welcome into your forces...er,right? We used to think of them as great "family men(and women)",and now we know how wrong we were about that--although they certainly are devoted to their children,their marriage bonds are not very strong. Given that the mexican army is no doubt awash with corruption,maybe the Hisapnic soldier is not the prize we may think he is??? -Josh

Parents have something to do with whether or not someone joins up. I have advised my son in no uncertain terms to avoid the military as he would the plague. It is no longer engaged in defending the USA - it is the Afrika Korps for the New World Order! I might consent to let him join the Marines if he angers me egregiously.

Unless we can get a massive [like 100M+] infusion of high-IQ immigrants, who are determined to make lots and lots of babies, or unless & until the Evangelicals start making even more babies than they are already making, our future is looking disastrous.

Unfortunately, the white supremacists on this board would rather have an empty country with a few white people than a vibrant superpower with the high IQ of the world working here.

And thanks for the kind words, lucius, but future mates for my spawn would be even better.

Finally, what exactly is wrong with a big wide open country? I've been to Asia; I like Asia, and I'd happily move there; but most white Americans want to raise children with a backyard, a country house, and national parks. I don't see that letting in a bunch of deracinated high-IQ foreigners is worth losing those things.

But, in private correspondence, The Derb is much more pessimistic than I.

[BTW, I also agree with an old Pat Buchanan proposal from the late 1980's or early 1990's - we ought to jack up traditional European immigration, with an eye towards plucking off as many European conservatives as possible, before Islam conquers Europe and all of our ancestral kin have been rendered extinct.]

Nevertheless, the dysgenics of our demography are getting so bad that we are going to need to admit tens of millions [if not hundreds of millions] of high-IQ immigrants, knowing full well that they will vote marxist, simply to save us from the idiocratic future of 2050 [not 2500, as noted above].

Anonymous:Hello, I'm a female who left my Army career in order to be a stay-at-home mom and have 3-4 kids (just one so far). I scored in the 99th percentile on the ASVAB. I decided serving my country, not the Army, was my priority, and that I could better serve my country by having and raising good kids...

God bless you, too.

Let me say one little, thing, though, which I hope you won't take the wrong way: Your children must be brought into this world for their own sake, and not for any other sake.

Spengler, at the Asia Times, has written a number of essays on this topic; I'd start with these:

The pagans of old faced death with the confidence that their race would continue. But tribes and nations anticipate their own extinction just as individuals anticipate their own death, [Rosenzweig] added: "The love of the nations for their own nationhood is sweet and pregnant with the presentiment of death." Each nation, [Rosenzweig] wrote, knows that some day other peoples will occupy their lands, and their language and culture will be interred in dusty books.

I don't consider myself a white supremacist, but I would rather live in little ol' Switzerland than in big, vibrant Brazil.----------------------------You are confusing two completely different points.1)Most Non whites have lower IQs.2)Selective non-white Immigrants can easily have higher IQs than 100.

The following is plagiarized from a "Freddy" comment a couple days ago --

You are looking only at "benefits" and not "costs": damage to native genetic interests from the influx of aliens, disruption of organic solidarity and social cohesion of society, the fact that these "high-IQ immigrants" will be in the position to utilize their "intelligence" and professional status to promote their own racial interests at white expense, displacement of intelligent whites by ethnocentric Asian "competition" (i.e., actually rank ethnic nepotism), loss of social and political status and upward mobility...

You can't quantify the impact of high-IQ immigrants, buit we know there are lots of costs. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

By the way, your proposed immigration policy -- especially if it would work the way you claim -- is blatantly, aggressively "racist". You propose that a majority-white nation mine the human capital of non-white nations for the benefit of the majority-white nation at the expense of the non-white nations.

The Army has avoided taking on low-IQ recruits because they do a hellafied LOT of damage within the unit long before they can hit the ground and "break things" somewhere else. They can't be trusted to follow orders reliably, they lose essential equipment, etc.

For some of them, even very basic functions like personal hygiene can't be left unsupervised...Even simple training exercises become dangerous and hopelessly disorganized once the number of low-IQ personnel reaches a critical mass."1/25/2008

This entire discussion is specious. Given IRON Discipline low IQ soldiers can and have performed well in historical accounts. The main problem with the US Military increasingly is the lack of real discipline, a feminization of the military in real terms.

Case in point. Most people reading this blog are surely aware that sub Saharan blacks have IQs of a mean circa 70. This talent pool should be nearly worthless as soldiers according to what iSteve has argued. However during the First World War General Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck commanded with German Officers and Non-Coms Black indigenous troops (Askari) through four years of fighting the Brits, South Africans, Rhodesians, Portuguese and Belgians without being defeated. The secret was typically German: Iron discipline, great officers and non-coms ( German motto: better no officer than a bad officer ), treat the Askari with respect and fair play including paying them well. The German led Askari responded well and proved to be excellent soldiers in spite of their low IQs.

Two good books on this are:Hoyt, Edwin, The Germans who never lost, Frewin, 1969, ISBN 0-090-96400-4and,Byron Farwell: The Great War in Africa, 1914-1918, W. W. Norton & Company, 1989, ISBN 0-393-30564-3.

Your "Band of Brothers" comment, that a career soldier said years later that Easy Company was the best outfit he'd ever served in actually highlights a problem the Army has (and the Marines do not).

The Army tends to segregate its smart, motivated soldiers into volunteer elite units--- paratroopers, (Easy Company was part of the 101st Airborne), Rangers, Green Berets, Delta Force. In contrast, the Marines prefers to keep its best soldiers scattered among its various regiments. They like to think of the entire Marine Corps as an elite unit.

Because an ordinary Marine rifle company is leavened with superior soldiers while an ordinary Army infantry company would see them off joining the Green Berets, the typical Marine company is a more effective unit than the typical Army company.

Beyond that, the Marines go through more training. Marine basic training is a longer than the Army's. After that, even the clerks and cooks go to infantry school before joining the fleet and every officer (including lawyers and aviators) follow OCS with 6 months of training in commanding a rifle platoon and company.

If your kid was in a gunfight in Baghdad, his odds are better in a Marine unit than an Army one.

As for Bush relatives in the service, yes his nephew George P. did enlist in what The Simpsons aptly called America's 17th line of defense, but beyond that, the Bush family hasn't exactly rallied to the flag.

It drives me nuts that the politicians call terrorism "an existential threat" and yet we are so half-assed about it that its clearly just rhetoric. In World War II, every healthy young male was drafted, the speed limit was dropped to 35 mph (and gas rationed to 3 gallons a week) and the top income tax rate was raised to 90%. In 5 years, Leslie Groves built the Pentagon and the A-bomb, 6+ years later, how's the WTC rebuilding coming along?

As for the president, all four of Roosevelt's sons (as well as his son-in-law) served in the military. In Britain, the king didn't have any sons, but his daughter Elizabeth joined the army.

Why should any American encourage a family member to join if the President Bush won't encourage his own family to do so?

a surviving spouse (or designated benificiary) gets a lump sum $400,000 SGLI payout in addition to the monthly death benefits. So, surviving family members are pretty well taken care of financially.

Yes, now. On September 11, 2001, that amount was $6,000.

The Army tends to segregate its smart, motivated soldiers into volunteer elite units--- paratroopers, (Easy Company was part of the 101st Airborne), Rangers, Green Berets, Delta Force. In contrast, the Marines prefers to keep its best soldiers scattered among its various regiments. They like to think of the entire Marine Corps as an elite unit.

Very true, but I wonder if the Army would really be that much better if it didn't have the elite units. Somehow I doubt it. They could just as easily see a dropoff in the quality of recruits.

But it does remind me of a quote from "Breakout," a book on the Chosin Reservoir Campaign during Korea:

"Thought they were the most colorful troops in the American armed forces, there was nothing flashy about the Marines. None of their units bore names like Tropic Lightning or Screaming Eagles. The Marine uniform...was a simple forest green, plain and unadorned in comparison with the Army uniform with its badges..."

Even the names of unit leaders were, well, plain:

"There was a surplus of dirt-common names among the key officers of the day - lots of Browns, Davises, Johnsons, Joneses, Smiths, Williamses, Wilsons and such"

The quote goes on to compare the plainness of the names to the non-flashiness of the Marine Corps. But the flashiness is the Corps itself. In the military, the Marines are "shock forces," while the Army has the often more mundane task of occupation.

I'm not sure you could apply the Marine model to the Army and get the same results. In fact I'm pretty sure you wouldn't.

As for the president, all four of Roosevelt's sons (as well as his son-in-law) served in the military.

I'm not sure, given all the attention and security risks, that a Jenna Bush or Chelsea Clinton would ever really be able to serve. But it'd be nice if the kids of governors and congressmen served more often.

Then again, given the lousy political choices we have, how much does it really matter? I'd choose Mitt Romney and his 5 sons who never served over John McCain, Lindsey Graham or John Kerry any day. Beggars can't be choosers.

It drives me nuts that the politicians call terrorism "an existential threat" and yet we are so half-assed about it that its clearly just rhetoric. - Beowulf

Bush really doesn't understand the message he sends with some of the decisions he makes.

He may very well be right that increased Muslim immigration, open borders, and selling US ports to an Arab country will have no security consequences in the age of terrorism. But large numbers of Americans are convinced that they do. When you're fighting a war and trying to maintain support from the people, you can't let them think that you aren't really 100% committed to fighting it. You have to win the war of perception, too.

The fact that his campaign manager, Karl Rove, was clearly so involved in his policy formulation and his day-to-day administration didn't help much, either. It made him look like he was more interested in winning a campaign than in governing.

I propose people who make the A/Cs and high speed modems that make life convenient have the option to come here.

I don't think we can ever have a serious conversation about high-skilled immigration so long as low-skill immigration is so damn high.

All I know is that our population is increasing by over 2 million people a year thanks to immigrants and the children they have. How many of those immigrants are truly "high-skilled"? 10,000? 50,000? 200,000?

The other thing I happen to know is that when my ancestors came here their IQs were well above those of the natives. It didn't do the natives much good, though. They would've been wise to let them starve through that first miserable winter.

You have to think rationally about what's in the best interests of the people who live here, not what's in the best interests of the almighty god "Economy," who will have no other gods before him, but who certainly does love graven images, in the form of dollar bills and stock certificates.

You have to think rationally about what's in the best interests of the people who live here, not what's in the best interests of the almighty god "Economy," who will have no other gods before him, but who certainly does love graven images, in the form of dollar bills and stock certificates.

Simple word. Assimilation.

You rail against immigration, but your anger should really just focus on Hispanic and Muslims immigrants. If we select out immigrants to get the high IQ from Asia and the rest of the world, and get people who already speak English, then I honestly think they can assimilate, if in moderate numbers.

Saying that the immigrants vote party line marxist is just bs.

The evangelical takeover of the Republican party is, honestly, the primary reason why immigrants shun away from it. It's not that they hate America or any other ethnic nepotism that you are trying to get at.

Do you KNOW who the governor of Louisiana is? An Indian! And this is the most hick, racist state in the country. If they think that he'll look out for their interests, then why not other Indians and other immigrants?

The thing is, is that there seems to be a space shortage because a good chunk of most cities is rendered inhabitable because of black and Hispanic ghettos. It has little to do with high-IQ immigration pressure.

Johnson:Simple word. Assimilation... The evangelical takeover of the Republican party is, honestly, the primary reason why immigrants shun away from it... Do you KNOW who the governor of Louisiana is? An Indian! And this is the most hick, racist state in the country.

Well, let's see: Bobby Jindal was EVANGELIZED, left Hinduism, and converted to Christianity.

Which, to me, looks suspiciously like ASSIMILATION.

And then all those stupid hick hayseed redneck Republicans turned right around and voted him the governorship.

So: Is Bobby Jindal evil for succumbing to Christian evangelization? Or are all those GOP evangelicals not-evil for having elected an immigrant as their governor?

So: Is Bobby Jindal evil for succumbing to Christian evangelization? Or are all those GOP evangelicals not-evil for having elected an immigrant as their governor?

Help me out here, I'm confused.

I was making two separate claims.

One was that immigrants largely vote democrat because Republicans are too evangelical, and a sidenote is that there are alot of the white supremacists that post here also in the Republican party.

Two, that most immigrants can assimilate.

While most immigrants end up assimilating into centrist democrats, there are the occasional ones that manage to declare Christ their Lord and Savior and end up becoming evangelicals and can therefore become Republican politicians in a state like Louisiana.

All I am saying is that, after controlling for IQ and Islam, the whole race issue really starts to matter alot less, in term of American identity.

That's all I meant, that Jindal is the EXTREME of the assimilated american, and there are plenty of more immigrants like him, with less radical views. But still well within the mainstream of American political thought.

If anything, This nytimes article shows that we have to start importing high IQ immigrants. Fast.

The other thing I happen to know is that when my ancestors came here their IQs were well above those of the natives. It didn't do the natives much good, though. They would've been wise to let them starve through that first miserable winter.

Yeah, let's poll the Injuns on how cognitive elitism worked for them.

"Johnson" seems to think we don't notice him working to advance his own Ethnic Genetic Interests, at the expense of ours, under the flag of "homo economicus," "the American propositional nation," the kitchen sink, etc.

If we select out immigrants to get the high IQ from Asia and the rest of the world, and get people who already speak English, then I honestly think they can assimilate, if in moderate numbers.

Well now! Johnson honestly thinks they'll assimilate. Well, that changes everything. What was I thinking? LOL.

Saying that the immigrants vote party line marxist is just bs.

Well, damn! Again, what was I thinking? Johnson says it's "just bs." That's all I need to know! Thanks for clearing these things up for us Johnson. What would we do without you here to point out what should be obvious?

The evangelical takeover of the Republican party is, honestly, the primary reason why immigrants shun away from it. It's not that they hate America or any other ethnic nepotism that you are trying to get at.

Yes, non-whites flock to the non-white party because of the religion of the white party. Now I understand! Brilliant! Why didn't I ever think of that?

The politics of these oh-so-desirable, oh-so-valuable, oh-so-crucial-to-our-survival non-whites is...wait for it...the fault of whites.

This is so persuasive! Now I'm really convinced of Johnson's good intentions, the "cognitive elite's" good intentions, and white America's guilt for any action taken by non-whites against white interests.

You should sell cars Johnson!

Do you KNOW who the governor of Louisiana is? An Indian! And this is the most hick, racist state in the country. If they think that he'll look out for their interests, then why not other Indians and other immigrants?

Hey, good stuff Johnson! Call the natives racist hicks, that'll sell us all on the "cognitive elite," the guarantees of assimilation, benefits vs. risks/costs, etc.

One was that immigrants largely vote democrat because Republicans are too evangelical, and a sidenote is that there are alot of the white supremacists that post here also in the Republican party.

Thanks for hammering that home, Johnson. I almost forgot that white evangelicals own the Republican party (I was starting to think it was neocons, heh - my bad!), and that they're to blame for the politics of the "cognitive elite." Way to look out for me, buddy.

Two, that most immigrants can assimilate.

Most people can slit their own throats, too. So?

Oops! I forgot we were such good friends, what with all the warm vibes emanating from you lately. My bad! (how could I have ever questioned the motives of an obviously righteous, well-intentioned, cognitively elite guy like Johnson?).

"This entire discussion is specious. Given IRON Discipline low IQ soldiers can and have performed well in historical accounts. The main problem with the US Military increasingly is the lack of real discipline, a feminization of the military in real terms."

Ay, if you could still literally beat some sense into the troops, then you would have a point.

However, the army no longer works like that, and it will not, whilst we still have a volunteer force and a population that at least superficially believs in racial equality.

You would need to have a major, major throwback to some very old techniques for this to work. People would invoke slavery.

Segregated units, (you could do it by IQ, but the results would be ethnically incriminating, no?) ferocious physical discipline, mostly-white guys in charge, no real options for advancement to leadership or technical positions, etc.

A hundred things there run entirely counter to the current zeitgeist. This is a country that hasn't even really made up its mind about immigration, lol, let alone gotten interested in a return to de facto military Jim Crow.

1) Although the pre-9/11 death gratuity was $6k, surviving spouses also received SGLI payments of $250k.

2) Your comparisons of the Marines and Army in Korea are meaningless to today: The Army was comprised of conscripts then, and the Marines were all volunteers. For the last few decades, the Army has been a volunteer service as well.

3) Regular army infantry units are "leavened" with Ranger School grads. There are far more Ranger-qualified soldiers than there are troops in the three active Ranger battalions.

4) The Marines are not really "elite". No organization that big can be considered elite. Marines used to be considered elite when there was only a handful of them, tasked with boarding and defending ships. Once the USMC embraced amphibious warfare to justify a larger size in the early 20th century, it became essentially the Navy's army.

5) Truly elite warrior candidates do not join the Marine Corps. They join the Navy or Army where they can attempt to qualify for elite fighting units such as the SEALS or the Delta Force.

6) The idea that the Marines are "shock troops" and the Army is for "occupation" is specious. Both the Marines and Army participated in the initial invasion of Iraq, for example, and both participate in the occupation. Traditionally, the distinct use of Marines was in "small wars" -- low-intensity warfare deployments in places like warlord-era China. Today, the Army and Marines are both used low-intensity as well as high-intensity deployments.

I was a rare high Category I who enlisted. Let's just say it's the family business - and my kid will make it a 3rd generation in the same branch of service.

I noticed early on that every thing (even in the most "technical" service) was dumbed down. I could run circles around my peers and leaders. I learned the M-16 almost by Osmosis, and to this day can still field strip one correctly and identify all the parts.

High IQ does matter. It directly translates into taking learned knowledge and applying it correctly. And with blinding speed. It saved my life. I correctly deduced the blast range and radius of a Chinese 122 mm rocket that landed. I could hear it coming and could instantly calculate from the visible blur where it would land within 25 feet. I had to decide which obstacle to dive behind.

I was promoted quickly, and could adapt to new situations with ease.

Many of my high IQ peers became officers instead, but the vast majority went into things like academia. Teaching and pontificating doesn't interest me. I DO like creative problem solving. And in a world of average IQ folks -- my talents were ALWAYS needed.

Give me a problem, and before you're done speaking, I'm already giving you the solution. I don't have to be an expert, like troubleshooting a broken down truck. I'm not a "mechanic", but I can listen to an engine, and tell you which system is broken, and what the nature of the sound is. Can I take it apart and replace it....? Given enough time.

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.